VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Wins Holding Deposit Repayment Order in First-tier Tribunal

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a tenant is entitled to the repayment of a holding deposit if the conditions for repayment are met under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. In this case, the tenant was successful in obtaining the repayment of a holding deposit after the landlord failed to grant a tenancy agreement within the specified timeframe.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to the repayment of a holding deposit if the conditions for repayment are met under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

Topics

tenancy agreementsholding depositsTenant Fees Act 2019

Provisions

Tenant Fees Act 2019 s.15(3)Tenant Fees Act 2019 s.15(9)Tenant Fees Act 2019 s.15(11)

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ordered the repayment of a holding deposit under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ordered the repayment of a holding deposit to the tenant under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, as the landlord failed to grant a tenancy agreement within the specified timeframe.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case Reference : MAN/00CH/HTC/2020/0004 P

Property : [ADDRESS]

Tyne and Wear

[POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted]

Ms [RESPONDENT]

Respondent: [redacted] For recovery of a holding deposit – s15(3) of the Tenant Fees Act 2019

Tribunal Member : Judge J Holbrook

Date of Decision : 22 February 2021

_______________________________________________

ORDER ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 ORDER

On or before 5 March 2021, the Respondent must repay £103 to the Applicants, being the whole of the holding deposit paid by them in respect of [ADDRESS], Gateshead.

REASONS

Tenant Fees Act 2019

1. A tenant of residential premises in England may lawfully be required to pay (in addition to rent) a refundable tenancy deposit and/or a refundable holding deposit. However, the Tenant Fees Act 2019 prohibits landlords and letting agents from requiring tenants to make many other payments in connection with a tenancy.

2. If a tenant has made a prohibited payment, the Tribunal may order the landlord or letting agent to repay it.

3. The Tenant Fees Act also deals with the treatment of holding deposits and the circumstances in which they must be repaid. Where appropriate, the Tribunal may order recovery of a holding deposit.

Holding deposits

4. A landlord or letting agent may require a person proposing to take a tenancy to pay a holding deposit before the tenancy is granted. This must not exceed one week’s rent.

5. The general rule is that a holding deposit must be repaid within seven days if:

(a) the landlord and the tenant enter into a tenancy agreement,

(b) within 15 days of payment of the deposit, the landlord decides not to enter into a tenancy agreement, or

(c) the landlord and the tenant fail to enter into a tenancy agreement before the end of that 15-day period.

6. There are obviously exceptions to the duty to repay a holding deposit. For example, a holding deposit does not have to be repaid following the grant of a tenancy if the tenant has agreed to the deposit being applied towards the first payment of rent or towards the tenancy deposit. Nor is a holding deposit repayable if, within the 15-day period mentioned above, the prospective tenant either notifies the landlord or letting agent that they have decided not to enter into a tenancy agreement, or they fail to take reasonable steps to enter into a tenancy agreement.

3 Facts of this case

7. On 24 February 2020, the Applicants entered into a written ‘Pre-tenancy & Holding Deposit Agreement’ with the Respondent letting agent. The agreement concerned a property at [ADDRESS], Gateshead, which the Applicants were hoping to rent on an assured shorthold tenancy for £450 per calendar month.

8. The Applicants paid a holding deposit of £103 to the Respondent under the agreement.

9. The Applicants subsequently decided not to rent the [ADDRESS] property and risked losing their holding deposit as a result. However, they expressed an interest in renting an alternative property, at [ADDRESS] in Gateshead, on similar terms.

10. At 16:50 on Friday 28 February, a member of the Respondent’s staff sent the following email to the Applicants:

[redacted] you are wanting to bounce your holding deposit to [ADDRESS]. Can you please respond to this email that you are happy to proceed with this. Once I receive a response we will send out a revised receipt of(sic) the new costings on.”

11. Ms [NAME] replied by email seven minutes later. Her email said:

“Please accept this email as proof of our acceptance and please bounce our holding deposit to [ADDRESS].”

12. At 17.35 on the same day, Ms [NAME] lodged a signed copy of a revised ‘Pre-tenancy & Holding Deposit Agreement’ using an electronic document signing service. However, the [NAME] had closed for the day at 17:30.

13. Unfortunately, over the course of the weekend, the landlord of [ADDRESS] decided to let the property to somebody else and, on Monday 2 March, the Respondent informed the Applicants that they would not be able to rent it.

14. The holding deposit has not been repaid and, on 3 December 2020, the Applicants applied to the Tribunal for its recovery.

Discussion

15. I have determined this matter upon consideration of the application form and supporting documents together with the written representations provided by the Respondent in reply. The outcome does not depend upon disputed questions of fact and I am satisfied that it is appropriate to determine the application without a hearing.

4 16. The Respondent argues that it has no obligation to repay the holding deposit because the parties did not enter into a binding agreement to transfer the deposit from the [ADDRESS] property to the [ADDRESS] one. This is said to follow from the fact that the signed ‘Pre- tenancy & Holding Deposit Agreement’ relating to [ADDRESS] was not returned by the Applicants until after close of business on Friday, 28 February 2020 (and the landlord having let the property to somebody else by the following Monday morning).

17. I do not agree with that analysis. Whilst the landlord of [ADDRESS] was never under any obligation to let that property to the Applicants, the email exchange which had taken place on that Friday afternoon between the letting agent and the Applicants (set out at paragraphs 10 and 11 above) evidences a clear and unconditional agreement to treat the earlier payment of £103 as a holding deposit for [ADDRESS]. As the landlord subsequently decided not to let that property to the Applicants, the holding deposit should have been repaid to them.

Outcome

18. For these reasons, the Respondent letting agent is ordered to repay the holding deposit of £103 to the Applicants. It must do so on or before 5 March 2021.

19. This order is made under section 15(9) of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and, by virtue of section 15(11), it is enforceable by order of the County Court as if the amount payable under this order were payable under an order of that Court.

Signed: [NAME] Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Date: 22 February 2021

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tenant is entitled to the repayment of a holding deposit under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair rent that reflects the property's condition and market comparables.
  • A fair rent determination considers the property's condition, location, and market comparables.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The case involves a local housing authority imposing a financial penalty based on conduct.
  • A tenant's claim is partially dismissed when only part of the request is granted.
  • Determining a fair rent based on the property's condition and market comparables can result in dismissal if other factors are not met.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision ordered the repayment of a holding deposit to the tenant.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a letting agent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant was entitled to the repayment of the holding deposit because the conditions for repayment were met under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Tenant Fees Act 2019 was applied, specifically sections 15(3), 15(9), and 15(11).

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the conditions for repayment of a holding deposit were met under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be entitled to the repayment of a holding deposit if the conditions for repayment are met under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Email exchanges and the written 'Pre-tenancy & Holding Deposit Agreement' were important pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving the repayment of holding deposits.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.